<quoted text> The US is a nation rich in many natural resources, but Africa is a continent that contributed to the development of US and more to Europe.Now answer my question, why do you import oils instead of exporting, when you have it in abundance?

What makes you think that the US doesn't export oil? In fact in 2010, we exported more oil than we imported.

<quoted text> Liar!English belongs to the English( people of England).

Yes and stupidity belongs to you. I guess the French own all french kisses and french fries. Only Dutch people can go Dutch, Mexico owns all Mexican restaurants. The Spanish own a flu and a fly. Morse owns a code and the Scot's own free. Duck's own tape unless it's cheap tape then it belongs to Scotch. You don't have to guess who owns Brandy. I can only guess you used to live under London bridge, and when it fell , it hit you on your big ole doofus head.

USA will be the worlds biggest producer and exporter of oil and gas within ten years, USA has huge shale oil and gas reserves and they are being extracted in very large amounts, the price of oil in USA is two thirds lower than Europe, this shale oil revolution is a geopolitical game changer, America are now to be a massive exporter again, and will have energy independence, no more reliance on middle east, now countries will be reliant on cheap American oil and gas, shale oil and gas has changed everything, USA are now in a great position, and only they have the technology to extract it at marketable prices, thankfully they have sent engineers to Britain to help us get at our huge shale reserves too, as we have the fourth biggest on earth, much of all England is sitting on massive reserves, and its in England, not Scotland like the north sea oil LOL, or our crude oil in the falklands

<quoted text>Yes. Lets DO face reality.I provided evidence that the US in fact DOES export oil.No twisting of the facts. We DO EXPORT OIL.Deal with it.

I can't believe some Americans don't know this, havnt you been paying attention to the shale oil revolution going on in your country, USA will soon be the biggest producer and exporter of oil AND gas, within ten years, I think it was actually closer to six years, that's when usa will take first place as the worlds top oil and gas producer and exporter. This has been big news in britain, don't you follow it, as USA is your country, I thought you would all be aware of such a large revolution happening in your country

<quoted text>I can't believe some Americans don't know this, havnt you been paying attention to the shale oil revolution going on in your country, USA will soon be the biggest producer and exporter of oil AND gas, within ten years, I think it was actually closer to six years, that's when usa will take first place as the worlds top oil and gas producer and exporter. This has been big news in britain, don't you follow it, as USA is your country, I thought you would all be aware of such a large revolution happening in your country

The problem with shale oil is price. It requires lots of energy to extract, but the high note is when oil is depletedit will still be there , but at a pricey price.What we have tickets to is Canada's tar sands which are massive 1.7 trillion barrels andboth deep oil and oil that is in protected environments.

<quoted text>I can't believe some Americans don't know this, havnt you been paying attention to the shale oil revolution going on in your country, USA will soon be the biggest producer and exporter of oil AND gas, within ten years, I think it was actually closer to six years, that's when usa will take first place as the worlds top oil and gas producer and exporter. This has been big news in britain, don't you follow it, as USA is your country, I thought you would all be aware of such a large revolution happening in your country

What makes you think I wasn't already aware of that?

I just hope that within the next decade, we can reduce our reliance on most uses of fossil fuels, and develop cleaner energies.

Besides, shale oil is environmentally disastrous. Fracking contaminates the groundwater forever. I'd personally rather have clean water than oil.

Continued--For MarkSee all of my words above here. A thing to consider is that we know the Bible describes people and some places accurately, but it also describes happenings that we KNOW for a fact are not true.You write:“"The reader may rest assured that nothing has been found [by archaeologists] to disturb a reasonable faith, and nothing has been discovered which can disprove a single theological doctrine. The Bible can stand for itself." - Dr. William F. Albright –“Ah, good ol’ Dr. Albright. He was a kinda’ good archaeologist and a kinda’ good scientist. He had a serious problem though. He did not use the scientific method properly and he thereby contaminated most of his work.In archaeology, or any other science, you DO NOT make the conclusion first and then try to find evidence to back you up. You DO NOT say,“OK we ‘know’ there was a flood so let’s see if we can find evidence to back it up.” Much of his work is under review. Look him up in Google.

I have seen the Dead Sea Scrolls and have followed the story for years.--end--

Thank you for this thoughtful and volumous reply. In actuality, the findings I mentioned - S&D, Zoar, Jericho, Ebla and (Ai, your mention) are all modern and post-date the quotes listed, so I don't see how the comments are out of date. Your Israeli sources are long recognized secular Jews and no friend of Biblical apologists. Their findings and summary dismissals of the Biblical accounts are based on absence of evidence rather than contrary evidence, pretty shaky and nothing to do with findings in the trenches when you look closely. You mentioned hard evidence? they have none.

They sweep away the Exodus account merely because they have trouble finding of what? a 40 year camping trip with a tent temple thousands of years ago? They discredit Scripture based on the mention of domesticated camels being used too early in the age - why?, if the Bible mentions them as domesticated is this not an authoritative account? No they say, because they can't find collaboration outside the Bible, so based on more non-evidence they claim its falsified! How arrogant! If that's not anti-Biblical bias I dont know what is. Dromedaries are also mentioned in the herds that Job lost,(3000) and that predates the Exodus. An inscription recently unearthed stating "The House of David" has thrown many of these skeptics off balance in recent days.

Gaps in the Egyptian side of history are very suspicious, many feel the fam. of the responsible leaders removed the account because they were embarrassed by it. As for Jericho, the recent findings of bread in the ovens doesn't fair well for the abandoned city story,(with the walls caved in).

There is encouraging and ongoing work going on at Ai. My statements concerning the S&D destruction are based on a film documentary I viewed with shock back in 2003 or so. Short run series.

This is not the place to debate this huge topic, but here again I show there is another side of this story in just a few words.

<quoted text>Thank you for this thoughtful and volumous reply. In actuality, the findings I mentioned - S&D, Zoar, Jericho, Ebla and (Ai, your mention) are all modern and post-date the quotes listed, so I don't see how the comments are out of date. Your Israeli sources are long recognized secular Jews and no friend of Biblical apologists. Their findings and summary dismissals of the Biblical accounts are based on absence of evidence rather than contrary evidence, pretty shaky and nothing to do with findings in the trenches when you look closely. You mentioned hard evidence? they have none.They sweep away the Exodus account merely because they have trouble finding of what? a 40 year camping trip with a tent temple thousands of years ago? They discredit Scripture based on the mention of domesticated camels being used too early in the age - why?, if the Bible mentions them as domesticated is this not an authoritative account? No they say, because they can't find collaboration outside the Bible, so based on more non-evidence they claim its falsified! How arrogant! If that's not anti-Biblical bias I dont know what is. Dromedaries are also mentioned in the herds that Job lost,(3000) and that predates the Exodus. An inscription recently unearthed stating "The House of David" has thrown many of these skeptics off balance in recent days.Gaps in the Egyptian side of history are very suspicious, many feel the fam. of the responsible leaders removed the account because they were embarrassed by it. As for Jericho, the recent findings of bread in the ovens doesn't fair well for the abandoned city story,(with the walls caved in).There is encouraging and ongoing work going on at Ai. My statements concerning the S&D destruction are based on a film documentary I viewed with shock back in 2003 or so. Short run series.This is not the place to debate this huge topic, but here again I show there is another side of this story in just a few words.Mark

Exodus is dismissed as exaggerated because most of the evidence in fact does conflict with the story.The conquests were too far apart in time, the Egyptians never had hundreds of thousands or even tens of thousands of Jewish slaves.The Egyptian accounts of Jewish kingdoms do not collaborate, the archeological evidence does not collaborate, the evidence shows Israel was formed by the Canaanites who rebelled against their rulers, not because the Israelite conquered them. The bible is a work of historical exaggeration and fiction mixed with mythology and racial political rhetoric and propaganda , I would call much of it the first use of spin journalism.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Add your comments below

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite.
Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.